Vol. 261 No. 10
asked the Minister for Justice whether he will cite the cases on which the Government based their opinion that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice leading to their decision to introduce special courts; and whether this will be a temporary measure.
117.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will list those cases the outcome of which justified the Government in their decision to introduce that provision of the Offences Against the State Act which qualified them to use and establish special courts.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 116 and 117 together.
I am precluded from referring to individual cases in which persons have been acquitted.
I would, however, draw attention to the fact that, when a jury verdict has to be unanimous, each member of the jury that brings in a verdict of guilty is known to have supported the verdict and is thus a potential target for attack by associates of the convicted person. The possible threat of retaliation assumes new proportions when courthouses are picketed by persons in a barely-veiled atmosphere of intimidation.
The proclamation bringing Part V of the 1939 Act into force is not subject to any specific time limit but is temporary in the sense that the section under which it is made, namely section 35, requires the Government to revoke the proclamation when they become satisfied that the conditions which gave rise to it have ceased to exist.
Has there been any evidence of intimidation of jurors over the last few months?
That is not a mater into which I am prepared to go in detail in regard to any individual case. One can, I think, fairly draw conclusions from the verdicts that were brought in over a period of months.
Would the Minister not agree that if there were convictions in the type of cases about which we are speaking these convictions were obtained in cases in which there was substantial evidence while, in cases in which the evidence was lacking, there was an acquittal? Would he also agree that there have been acquittals by direction of the judge where cases have not been let go to a jury?
There has been a limited number of convictions. I am sure the Deputy is aware there has been a substantial number of cases in which there was strong and substantial evidence of the offence alleged in which acquittals were brought in.
Does the Minister visualise this as a temporary measure?
I thought I made that clear in my reply. The Act envisages that it is a temporary measure and the Government are obliged under the Act to revoke their proclamation as soon as they are satisfied that conditions are such as allow that to be done.
The Minister indicated that in the case of verdicts of guilty by juries each member of the jury was known to have voted "Yes" for conviction and he indicated that that could give rise to a situation in which jurors might be threatened. Have any threats been made to jurors who have convicted?
I am not prepared to go into detail about these cases. It is part of a juror's oath that he will not disclose anything connected with the case.
Have any threats been made to jurors?
If I were to reply to the Deputy it would necessitate my saying things that should not, perhaps, be said.
